
Class _E2 __ 

Book LZ 



GqpgbtN?. 






COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



"Why I Am Not A 
Christian Scientist" 



6J 



//I 

By REV. WILLIAM EVANS, D. D. 

Director Bible Course, The 

Moody Bible Institute 

of Chicago 

II 



This booklet contains the substance of Dr. Evans' 
lecture of similar title delivered at Chicago, 
Winona Lake, Pittsburgh and other places 



Price: 15 Cents a Copy 
Eight Copies for $1.00 



Chicago: 

The Bible Institute Colportage Association 

826 La Salle Avenue 



^\\\\\ 



Zt 5- 



Copyright, 191."?. by 

WILLIAM EVANS 



C1.A34 9796 

#4/ 



"Why I Am Not A Christian Scientist" 

This lecture is based on the statements of Christian 
Science itself as gathered from its own text books, particu- 
larly Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which 
has gone through many revisions and editions. Those who 
endeavor to refute the errors of Christian Science by re- 
ferring to this text book are sometimes accused of not 
quoting it correctly, or of making false statements. 

A quotation from the introduction to Dr. Haldeman's 
volume, entitled Christian Science in the Light of Holy 
Scripture — which, we understand, Mrs. Eddy put under the 
ban — throws considerable light upon this matter. The 
author says: "Since writing the above, the 1909 edition of 
Science and Health has been placed in my hands. 

"It differs greatly from the seventy-fourth edition, 1893. 

"A startling change has been made. The chapters have 
been completely transposed. 

"The first chapter in the seventy-fourth edition has been 
changed to the sixth in the 1909 edition; the second to the 
seventh; the third to the eighth; the fojurth to the ninth; 
the fifth to the tenth; the sixth to the fourth; the seventh 
to the third; the eighth to the fifth; the ninth to the 
eleventh; the tenth to the first and the eleventh to the 
second. 

"As a consequence of this re-arrangement, a statement 
made on a page of the seventy-fourth edition cannot be 
found on a corresponding page of the 1909 edition. 

"For example: A reference from page 351 of the seventy- 
fourth edition will be found on page 46 of the last edition. 
This is a difference of 305 pages. 



4 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

" I he result of the system is clear enough: those who try 
to verify the quotations made from the seventy-fourth edi- 
tion will have trouble, and not finding them, may l>e led to 
suppose they do not exist. 

"Not only has a radical change been made in the nu- 
merical re-organization of the chapters, but syllogisms, prop- 
ositions and statements have been transformed." 

To a candid mind these changes in the text book of 
Christian Science certainly give reason for doubting 
whether a "revelation" needing so much change, revision, 
and substitution was given by special inspiration of God. 
A Christian Science reader and practitioner, well known in 
Chicago Christian Science circles, stated recently that it 
was this one fact — the constant changing and revision of 
Science and Health, that first led her to doubt the truth 
and reliability of the claims of Christian Science to be a 
divine revelation, and which led her, later, to give up all 
faith in it. The matter of change and revision, extending 
as it does, even to direct contradictions of former state- 
ments, must eventually lead any serious-minded person to 
doubt that Christian Science is anything more than human 
in its origin. 

It has been stated that one who is not a fully-initiated 
Christian Scientist is not capable of judging the faith of 
that cult. It seems to us, however, that one who is not 
himself a Christian Scientist is really better able to judge 
of the merits of the case. There are reasons for this. The 
Christian Scientist is forbidden to read books that speak 
against that cult; he is told he must not argue with any one, 
even those who are of the closest kinship, if they manifest 
opposition to the teachings of Christian Science; the doubts 
that arise in his mind must not be expressed to any one 
save his teacher; individual thinking and opinion is dis- 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 5 

couraged; in point of fact, the only books he is encouraged 
to read are those which are sent out by the Christian 
Science publishing house in Boston. The Christian Scientist, 
therefore, has been characterized as one who is "compelled 
to walk through life like a horse with blinders, seeing only 
one thing and reading only one class of books." The man 
who is not thus restricted in his reading and speaking is 
surely more competent to judge of the value of Christian 
Science than one who is handicapped and limited as is the 
fully-initiated member of that cult. 

WHY CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TO CHRIS- 
TIAN SCIENCE? 

Why should the Christian pulpit deal with the faith and 
practice of Christian Science? Why single it out rather 
than some others? Why not leave it alone? The Christian 
pulpit would gladly leave it alone were it not for the fact 
that it comes to us with the title "Christian," and "In the 
name of Christ," and with its own text book bound in be- 
tween the covers of our Holy Bible. It demands a re- 
spectful hearing because it has attached to itself the name 
"Christian." 

But further, the Christian pulpit must pay some atten- 
tion to Christian Science because it assumes the privileges 
and prerogatives of a religion. It has its ministers, its 
churches, its members, its regular services, its bible. Did 
it assume a mere therapeutic attitude toward things, the 
Christian church would have no quarrel with it; did it 
content itself with being a "mind-cure" agency — which in 
reality it is — and not aspire to the title of a divine-healing 
cult, whose cures are wrought by virtue of a relation to 



6 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

certain religious principles, called Christian; then, if it 
kept within reasonable bounds, the Christian pulpit would 
not need to pay any particular attention to it. 

The Christian ministry is under obligation to warn 
Christendom of the errors of doctrine, and the apostasy of 
the days that are upon us and that are to come. It is re- 
markable to note, says one, that our Lord in dealing with 
the theme of the apostasy of the last days, characterizes 
it as not being down-right lawlessness, showing itself forth 
as such, but as a system, an organized form of professed 
truth, professing to come in the name of Christ, but in 
reality denying Christ, and thus leading its adherents to 
ruin. 

And now, coming more particularly to the reasons 
"Why I Am Not A Christian Scientist," let me say: 

I. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST BE- 
CAUSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IS NOT SCIEN- 
TIFIC. 

On the contrary, Christian Science denies the very first 
principles of science. Science is defined as "Knowledge 
gained and verified by exact observation." One thing which 
"exact observation" verifies by the experience of all is that 
matter exists, and that there are various kinds of matter. 
It also asserts that these scientific facts or data come to us 
through the senses. This scientific platform Christian 
Science denies in toto. The very first plank in the platform 
of Christian Science denies the reality of matter; declares 
that there is no substance in matter; that matter is mortal 
error; that matter is unreal. The following quotations set 
forth the Christian Science platform relative to the exist- 
ence of matter: 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 7 

"Matter seems to be, but — is not" (S. & H., p. 123, 
1909). "There is no substance in matter." "Matter is but 
manifest mortal mind" (Misc. Writings, pp. 21, 27, 47). 
"There is no matter" (Rudimental Science, p. 6). "Matter 
was originally error in solution" (S. & H., p. 372). 

According to Christian Science, then, there is no such 
thing as matter. "The only evidence of a material universe 
that we have is gathered from the five personal senses. This 
evidence Christian Science has dethroned" (Misc. Writings, 
pp. 64, 65). Matter is a delusion of the mortal mind; 
mind is the only thing; matter has no existence. 

Dr. E. Y. Mullins says: "Experience is the foundation 
of all philosophy and science; you cannot have either with- 
out experience. Experience is to philosophy and science 
what dough is to the housekeeper. We must take a lump 
of experience to make a scientific or philosophical biscuit. 
Experience furnishes the lump from which all science and 
philosophy are made." Prof. Bowen says: "No matter 
what your science or philosophy is, your experience is the 
same. You may evolve from your consciousness any sort of 
philosophy you wish, and call things by any sort of name 
your fancy may direct, but when you have done that, you 
have not altered your experience one particle." 

Christian Science tells us that "there is no substance in 
matter," that "Matter and evil are unreal." "But you 
say," (some inquirer asks) "is a stone spiritual? To 
erring mortal sense, No! but to unerring spiritual sense, it 
is a small manifestation of mind. Take away the mortal 
sense of substance and the stone itself would disappear" 
(Misc. Writings, p. 27). "According to this theory of 
matter, then a cobblestone is not matter, but an idea. Sup- 
pose, for a moment, that a cobblestone is just an idea, and 



8 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

assume that a man hurls it at you and strikes you on the 
head with it — it does not affect your experience one particle 
to be told that the cobblestone is just an idea. Admit, if 
you wish, that it is an idea, and what have you? An 
ideal man, we will say, hurls an ideal stone, and it strikes 
an ideal head, causes an ideal pain, raises an ideal 
bump, requires an ideal liniment which is rubbed on 
an ideal head, thus causing an ideal cure, and so you 
have an all-round ideal experience. Now, I say it 
does not make a particle of difference what you call a cob- 
blestone, your experience is just the same. A cobblestone 
that is an idea, hits your head just as hard as a cobblestone 
that is not an idea, but matter. Matter will produce the 
same experience even if you call it mind." 

I once heard of a boy who owned a belligerent billy- 
goat. One day the boy was teasing the animal. The goat 
stood the teasing as long as he could, and, finally, lowering 
his head, got ready to make a charge upon the mis- 
chievous boy. Naturally the boy screamed for help. In- 
stantly his mother, who was an ardent Christian Scientist, 
came to the rescue, and seeing his condition, tried to quiet 
him by saying: "Now, my son, be calm; don't be afraid; 
the goat can't hurt you, for the goat is only an idea; there 
is no such thing, really speaking, as a goat; it is a delusion 
of the mortal mind." The little fellow, almost dead with 
fright, screamed out, "Mamma, / know that, and you know 
that, but the goat don't know it!" 

The question is asked: "How can I believe that there is 
no such thing as matter, when I weigh over two hundred 
pounds and carry about this weight daily?" Answer: "By 
learning that matter is but manifest mortal mind. You 
entertain an adipose belief of yourself as substance" (Misc. 
Writings, pp. 46, 47). 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 9 

According to this theory, you weigh about as much as 
you think you weigh. Your experience is determined by 
what you think. Think that you are as light as a feather 
and you will be no heavier than that frail thing that is 
tossed about with the slightest breath of air. A very com- 
forting doctrine for stout people in hot weather; a good 
obesity-reducing scheme, surely. 

In Christian Science the evidence of the senses is not to 
be believed nor received. "The only evidence ... of 
a material state and universe, is gathered from the five 
personal senses. This delusive evidence Science has de- 
throned by repeated proofs of its falsity" (Misc. Writings, 
pp. 64, 65). Christian Science rejects the testimony of the 
senses, and "will not believe even though one rose from the 
dead." "If this proposition of the delusive evidence of the 
senses should be pressed to its conclusion, then everything 
the author of Christian Science has written would be 
proven false, since the evidence of her writings comes 
through at least two of the senses — seeing and hearing." 
Thus Christian Science refuses the testimony of the senses 
through which we gain scientific knowledge, and inconsist- 
ently calls itself a science. 

To the Christian Scientist, medicine and hygiene are un- 
necessary; physical exercise and care in diet are scarcely 
worthy of consideration. The difference between filth and 
flowers lies only in] thought — one would be as attractive as 
the other if it were not for the deluded mortal mind. All 
that medical men have to say about germs and microbes 
producing various diseases is utter foolishness. There is no 
difference between whiskey and milk except that difference 
which the mortal mind makes; if you associate the idea of 
intoxication with milk, then milk will make you drunk. Any 
amount of strychnine would be harmless except for the fact 



10 "Why I A m Not a Christian Scientist" 

that we think it fatal. A bunion will produce insanity 
just as quickly as congestion of the brain, if you only think 
so. 

To a Christian Scientist there is no such thing as heat 
or cold — "Heat and cold are products of the mind" — (S. 
& H., p. 374, 1909). He need not change the weight 
of his clothing in summer or winter; he need not go south 
in the winter, or north in summer. He need not build a 
fire nor use ice; he has no need of the coal man or the ice 
man. Though every thermometer in the land should in- 
dicate zero, the Christian Scientist would have no need to 
wear fur or sealskin, for the cold cannot affect him. Steam- 
heated apartments are no longer necessary, for ice and snow 
are only products of false belief. One might well ask, Does 
mortal mind raise and lower the mercury in a thermom- 
eter? Are ice and snow really but productions of false be- 
lief? If a native of Central Africa were transported sud- 
denly to the North Pole would the climate there be as 
warm to him as that of his native country, if he only 
thought so? 

Christian Science tells us that food and drink are not 
necessary; "Gustatory pleasure is a sensatory illusion that 
diminishes as we ascend in spiritual being." "Food neither 
strengthens nor weakens the body." It is truly laughable 
to hear a Christian Scientist say this after calling for a 
third supply of turkey at a Christmas dinner. 

Christian Science tells us that people lose their sense of 
sight and hearing because they believe in such things. If 
this be true, then we are to assume that people take cold, 
suffer, die, because they believe in such things. Do horses 
and dogs take cold, suffer disease and become blind because 
they believe in such things? Is this what we are asked to 
believe? 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 11 

Christian Science tells us that "treatises on ... 
Physiology .... are the promoters of sickness and 
disease" (S. & H„ p. 179, 1909). He who is ignorant 
of hygienic law is more receptive of spiritual power. One 
sometimes wonders whether this means that a person of 
ordinary cleanliness is thereby debarred from being a suc- 
cess in the matter of spiritual power. We are told that 
"You can even educate a healthy horse so far in physiology 
that he will take cold without his blanket" (S. & H., 
p. 179, 1909). "All disease is the result of education" 
(S. & H., pp. 69, 176, 1909). "The simple food of our 
forefathers did not make them strong, but ignorance of 
the laws of health and physiology" (S. & H., p. 197, 1909 
Revision). "A man's belief produces disease and all its 
symptoms" (S. & H. f p. 53, 1894). 

Christian Science tells us that "Human mind and body 
are myths." . . . "The blood, heart, brain, lungs, etc., 
have nothing to do with life, God" (S. & H., pp. 150, 151, 
1909). Someone has well said that if this be true "then the 
mummy of Rameses II., which now lies in the British Mu- 
seum and which is minus these organs, is still alive." 
"Brains have nothing to do> with life" — one can almost be- 
lieve it when he thinks of people believing such foolishness 
as this. Christian Science tells us that "bones have only 
the substantiality of thought. They are only an appearance, 
a subjective state of the mortal mind" (S. & H., p. 421, 
1894). According to this, a man might fall headlong down 
from a twenty-story building and break his back or even his 
neck, and if he could only rid himself of the thought that 
he had any bones at all, he might get up and say: "Man 
is eternal and indestructible, hence no breakage can really 
occur; I am not hurt" — and walk home as though nothing 
had happened to him. 



12 "Why I dm Sot a Christian Scientist' 

Christian Science tells us that "The evidence of the 
senses is not to be accepted in the case of sickness 1 v & 

H., p. 384, 1894). "Man is never sick" {8. & //.. p. 
1894). When, therefore, a man is doubled up with 
cramps or acute gastritis he need not send for the doctor. 
He needs but to be calm and self-possessed ; he is merely 
going through a new form of gymnastics; the Christian 
Scientist says to him, "Remember that you have a calm 
center within which can never be disturbed." According to 
this, a man is sick only because he thinks he is sick. Catarrh, 
rheumatism, hay-fever or consumption are not because of 
the climate, but on account of belief (cf. S. Sc H., p. 385, 
1894). The Christian Scientist says, "You say a boil is 
painful, but that is impossible"; . . . it is "a belief in 
pain and that belief is called a pain" (S. & H., p. 153, 
1908). Surely no person is foolish enough to suffer from 
a boil simply by imagining that he has one. Mrs. Eddy tells 
us "We have the smallpox because others have it" (S. & 
H., 153, 1909). The Christian Scientist says to the man 
with the contagious disease, "You are not sick; you are per- 
fectly well, and you may go among your friends as much 
as you please." If it be true that "Man is never sick," 
then our hospitals are filled with sound, healthy, well people, 
and it is a shame for the physician to take money from 
well people, and nothing short of a crime for the Christian 
Science practitioner to take money from patients for curing 
diseases which the patients do not have. This is getting 
money under false pretenses. 

According to Christian Science, "There is no death" 
(S. & H. t pp. 427, 428, 1909). "Death is a mortal illusion" 
(S. & H., p. 185. 1894) ; "A mortal belief" (S. & H., p. 
185, 1894) ; "The body cannot die" (S. & H., p. 426, 
1909) ; "Man is incapable ... of death" (S. k H. t p. 



"Why 1 Am Not a Christian Scientist" 13 

475, 1909). If it be true that "The body cannot die," 
then is not the mother who has laid away her little child, 
being persuaded that it was dead, really guilty of burying 
her child alive? As we have stood by the bedside of our 
loved ones and watched them breathe their last ; as we have 
followed them to the cemetery, and seen their bodies laid 
beneath the sod, have not we also been guilty of burying 
our loved ones alive? If "the body cannot die," then our 
friends are not dead, and in believing that they no longer 
live we are the victims of a false belief, and we are perpe- 
trators of a barbarian and criminal practice. 

That this proposition — that there is no reality in matter, 
and that the experience of the senses is not to be relied upon, 
but absolutely ignored — should be laid down as the funda- 
mental plank of a cult calling itself scientific; that it should 
seriously engage the attention of honest and intelligent per- 
sons seems almost beyond belief. How can any thinking 
man accept as a science, anything that so absolutely refutes 
the very fundamental facts of science as does Christian 
Science, falsely so called? 

In the preface of the 1909 edition of Science and Health, 
Mrs. Eddy says: "The divine principle of healing is 
proved by the personal experience of a sincere seeker after 
truth. . . . No intellectual proficiency is required in the 
learner." We can readily believe it. 

II. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST BE- 
CAUSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IS NOT CHRIS- 
TIAN. 

When the Pundita Ramabai came to this country in 1898, 
she remarked: "On my arrival in New York I was told 
that a new philosophy was being taught in the United 
States, and had already many disciples. The philosophy was 
called Christian Science: and when I asked what the teach- 



14 "Why I dm Not a Christian Scientist" 

ing was, I recognized it as being the same philosophy that 

had been taught among my people for four thousand years. 
It has ruined millions of lives and caused immeasurable 

suffering and sorrow in my land; for it is based on selfish- 
ness, and knows no sympathy or compassion. In our late 
famine, our philosophers felt no compassion for sufferers, 
and did not help the needy. For why should they help 
when they claim the suffering was not real, neither were 
the dying children real." Christian Science is pagan, not 
Christian, and it will be readily seen that when Mrs. Eddy 
declares that matter has no existence, she simply echoes the 
teachings of pagan philosophy. 

Christian Science shows itself to be unchristian in that 
it claims to be the religion of Jesus Christ, while asserting 
that it w r as discovered and revealed to the world for the 
first time by a woman. According to the precepts of this 
new cult the world from the time of Christ up to the ad- 
vent of Mrs. Eddy has been in darkness; it has had to wait 
nineteen hundred years for the light vouchsafed by a woman 
(who frankly confesses that she once humbugged patients by 
treating them with unmeditated pills) before it could know 
the real religion of Jesus. 

A consideration of its teachings reveals the fact that the 
very fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are denied 
by the teachings of Mrs. Eddy. 

1. Christian Science Denies the Personality of God. 

Indeed it is considered by Christian Science authorities 
that no one can become an adept in that science as a healer 
or teacher without absolutely relinquishing the idea of a 
divine personality. 

Strange as this may seem, it is nevertheless true. Chris- 
tian Science does not teach a personal God. God is indi- 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 15 

vidual, not personal; God is principle, not personality. This 
principle pervades the universe — indeed, is the universe. 
There is no other substance but God — for God is all and 
all is God. This means that Christian Science is pantheis- 
tic, or words have no meaning. Christian Science is, there- 
fore, pagan; for the heathen who bows down and worships 
his gods of wood and stone, sun and water, does so because 
he believes that God is in everything and that everything is 
God. Christian Science is pantheistic, not Christian; there- 
fore, I am not a Christian Scientist. 

To quote from Christian Science itself: "Principle and 
its idea is one, and this one is God" (S. & H., p. 465, 
1909). "The theory of three persons in one God . . . 
suggests heathen gods" (S. & H. } p. 256, 1909). "God 
is an impersonal being." "God is not a person." 

Rudimental Divine Science, p. 2, "In Christian Science 
we learn that God is definitely individual and not per- 
sonal." Page 2, "An individual God, rather than a per- 
sonal God." Page 3, "By the individuality of God — I 
mean the infinite and divine principle." S. & H., Index, 
pp. 616, 604, 1894, God, "as a principle, not a person, saves 
man." Nothing possesses reality or existence except mind, 
God. This means that as God is mind, and mind is prin- 
ciple, nothing exists but principle. In quoting 1 Timothy 
2:4, Mrs. Eddy says: "That which will have all men to 
be saved is principle, not person." (Italics ours.) 

The god whom the Christian Scientist would have us 
worship is not the Divine Being as presented to us in the 
Scriptures — a loving, kind, personal, heavenly Father, such 
a God as the human heart longs for; but, instead, it pre- 
sents to us an abstract, impersonal principle, or definition, 
which no man can either worship or love, and calls that 
thing God. To the Christian, God is an almighty omni- 



16 "Why 1 A m Not a Christian Scientist" 

present, omnipotent, omniscient, personal Being, who not 

only created all things, but who also sustains His creation 
by the continual manifestation of His power; a God who 
cares personally for each individual child of His, yea, who 
cares even for the sparrow that falls. God is not man, nor 
is man God ; God is not nature, nor is nature God. God 
is in nature and in man, but He has an existence separate 
from both nature and man. 

The God of the Christian Scientist is nothing but a 
"cold, formal abstraction, instead of the warm, loving, per- 
sonal God and Father as set forth by the Christian faith. 
The Christian Scientist set us a ghostly image fashioned of 
the thin abstraction of the mind, and would have us take it 
for the living God. But this is not the sort of God for 
w r hich men's hearts and flesh cry out." I cannot worship a 
principle, I cannot pray to a definition, I cannot love an 
idea. Such a conception of God is not Christian. To the 
Christian, God is a living, personal, self-existent God who 
in the beginning created all things, and who by His mighty 
power has, through all these ages, kept them in being; He 
is a Being who loves, cares and is personally interested in 
the well-being of His creatures. He is a Being who can 
be grieved, angered, w T ho has indignation, who can be moved 
to mercy; He is gracious and merciful. He has appeared to 
His children, spoken to them, and given them the names 
by which He is to be called. He is a King, seated on His 
throne in the heavens. God is not one great Allness. He 
is not an angel, nor Satan, nor man. 

2. Christian Science Denies the True Christian 
Doctrine of Jesus Christ. 

a) In the first place, it denies the Incarnation. 

Luke 1 :35 says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 17 

Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, and that in the fullness 
of time, Mary brought forth her first son. 

Christian Science says, in Science and Health: "Mary's 
conception of him (Christ) was spiritual" (p. 228). Not 
by the Spirit, but "spiritual." "The Virgin Mother con- 
ceived this idea of God, and gave to her ideal the name of 
Jesus" (p. 29, 1909). "Jesus was the offspring of Mary's 
self-conscious communion with God" (pp. 29, 30, 1909). 
Christ is an idea, not a person, conceived in the mind of 
the virgin (cf. p. 334, 1893). Christ is the impersonal 
Saviour (cf. Misc. Writings, p. 180). A difference is made 
between Jesus and Christ. Jesus and Christ are not the 
same; they are two, not one. Jesus is the appearance as- 
sumed by Christ, although this appearance was only ap- 
parent; it only seemed so to the mortal mind. The Christ 
is the divinity of the man Jesus (cf. p. 331, 1894). 

"The eternal Christ and the corporeal Jesus manifest in 
the flesh, continued until the Master's ascension; when the 
human, material concept, or Jesus, disappeared" (S. & H., 
p. 334, 1909). 

"Jesus as material manhood was not Christ" (Misc. 
Writings, p. 84, 1909). 

"At the time when Jesus felt our infirmities, he had not 
conquered all the beliefs of the flesh or his sense of material 
life, nor had he risen to his final demonstration of spiritual 
power" (S. & H., p. 53, 1909). 

"To accommodate himself to immature ideas of spiritual 
power .... Jesus called the body which .... he 
raised from the grave, flesh and bones" (S. & H., p. 313, 
1909). 

"These instances show the concessions which Jesus was 
willing to make to the popular ignorance" (S. & H., p. 
398, 1909). 



18 "Why 1 dm Sot a Christian Scientist" 

"A portion of God could not enter corporeal man, neither 
could his fullness be reflected by him — God can only be 
reflected by spiritual, incorporeal man" (S. & //., p. 231, 
1894). "The fullness of the Godhead bodily" therefore, 
never dwelt in him. 

In Christian Science, Jesus is not called corporeal, but 
'material concept" (S. & //., p. 334, 1909), or "Jesus." 
What the disciples saw as the body of Jesus was only a 
concept of the mortal mind. This concept passed away 
from their minds after the resurrection and ascension. The 
ascension of Christ to the Christian Scientist is nothing 
more than an ascended thought in the minds of His dis- 
ciples. Inasmuch then as Jesus passed away, and only the 
Christ remained and this Christ is an invisible, corporeal, 
impersonal idea, therefore Christian Science teaches that the 
incarnation never really took place. 

All this is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the 
Scriptures: 1 John 4:2; Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 7:14; Luke 
1:35; Luke 2:7; John 1:14, 18; Matthew 26:67, 68; 
Matthew 20:22, 28; Colossians 2:9; Romans 1:4; He- 
brews 10:5; Hebrews 10:10. 

In saying all this, the Bible contradicts everything Chris- 
tian Science says about it. "Christian Science says the in- 
carnation of Christ was ideal. The Bible says it was real. 
Christian Science says it was due to the self-consciousness 
of the Virgin Mary. The Bible says it was due to the 
sovereign, uncaused and personal action of the three persons 
of the eternal Godhead. Christian Science says that Jesus 
and Christ are two. The Bible says that they are one and 
indivisible. Christian Science says that corporeal Jesus was 
so only to the false belief of His disciples. The Bible says 
He is real and abiding. This is the immense and climacteric 
thing the Bible says: 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 19 

today, and forever.' (Hebrews 13:8). As though heaven 
anticipated the terrific attempt to make a schism between 
Jesus and Christ, an attempt to take away real existence 
from Jesus, and the body from Christ, it sends down this 
inspired proclamation: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, 
today, and forever. According to Christian Science, 
Jesus was not Christ (cf. p. 84, 1893), yet 1 John 2:22 
says, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the 
Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the 
Son' " (Haldeman). 

But this is not all. Hear what the Bible has to say of 
those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh. "Hereby 
know ye the Spirit of God ; every spirit that confesseth that 
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every 
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist 
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now 
already is it in the world" (1 John 4:2, 3). 

b) The Perfection of Christ's Life and Teachings are 
Denied. 

According to Christian Science, Jesus Himself was not 
always superior to the environment of mortal belief. He 
was yielding to this error when He foretold His death. 
He never really cast out demons; He made as though He 
did, but in reality He cast out nothing more than the false 
beliefs (cf. S. & H. } p. 79, 1909). 

Mrs. Eddy claims that her revelation is "higher, clearer 
and more permanent" than that given by the Man of 
Galilee. 

"At the time when Jesus felt our infirmities he had not 
conquered all the beliefs of the flesh — nor had he risen to 
his final demonstration of spiritual power" (S. & H., p. 53, 
1909). This means that inasmuch as belief in the flesh is 



20 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

false, there was a time when Jesus was under the power 
and dominion of the flesh, and not under the power of the 
Holy Spirit. "Jesus' wisdom was shown oftentimes by his 
forbearing to speak as well as by speaking the whole truth. 
This wisdom which characterized his sayings did not 
prophesy his death and thereby hasten and permit it" 
{Misc. Jl'ritings, p. 84). This is equivalent to saying that 
Jesus, by foolish talking about His death really hastened it; 
that He lacked wisdom in so doing; that He was not wise 
when He foretold His death. 

"To accommodate himself to immature ideas of spiritual 
power, Jesus called the body he raised from the grave . . 
flesh and bones" (S. & H., p. 313, 1909). This is equiva- 
lent to saying that Jesus was deceiving His disciples; that 
He was lying to His friends, that what He said was not 
true. 

"These instances show the concessions which Jesus was 
willing to make to the popular ignorance" (S. & H., p. 
398, 1909). What then becomes of the authority of 
Christ's teachings? What becomes of His claims to be the 
infallible Teacher of spiritual truth? How can He be not 
only the Way, and Life, but also the Truth, if He thus 
lied to His disciples and the people? We at once see into 
what awful uncertainty we are thrown by such teaching. 

c) The Deity of Jesus Christ is Denied. 

"We acknowledge his Son." Yes, but how is God's 
Son acknowledged? Jesus was not God's Son in any other 
sense than as every man is God's son — this is Christian 
Science teaching regarding the deity of Christ. Mrs. Eddy 
says that "Jesus was a good man" . . . "the offspring 
of Man's self-communing with God" (S. & H., p. 335, 
1893). "Jesus is the name of the man who has presented 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 21 

more than any other man the idea of God . . . but 
Jesus is not God." 

"The personality of Jesus is not to be worshipped" (S. 
& H., Index, p. 627, 1894). Jesus Christ is the name the 
Christian Scientist never worships. Mrs. Eddy, and her 
teachings, and not Jesus Christ and the Bible, is the upper- 
most theme in the testimony meetings in Christian Science 
churches. The Bible distinctly says that at the name 
of Jesus every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). Thomas 
fell at Jesus' feet and exclaimed, "My Lord and my God" 
(John 20:28). This worship Jesus accepted, has accepted 
all through the ages; this worship God commands all men 
to render to His Son (John 5:20-23) ; those who refuse to 
worship the Son will perish (Psalm 2:12). 

d) Christian Science Denies the Sacrificial and Atoning 
Merits of the Death of Jesus Christ. 

Christian Science claims that "The material blood of 
Jesus Christ was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin 
when it was shed upon the accursed tree than when it was 
flowing through his veins as he went daily about his 
Father's business" (S. & H., p. 25, 1909). "One sacri- 
fice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin" 
(S. Sc H., p. 23, 1909). These statements admit that the 
sacrifice that Christ made was great; but it also, just as 
clearly states, that it was but the sacrifice of one, and no 
sacrifice of one, however great, can take away the sin of 
another. If words mean anything, the creed of Christian 
Science regarding the atonement, is that Christ's sacrifice 
has no value whatever to take away sin. If this were true 
it would mean not only the destruction of many of our 
beautiful hymns, which deal with the death of Christ as 
the remedy for our sins, but it would also compel us to 
exclude from the Bible all such passages as clearly teach 



22 "If hy I A m Not a Christian Scientist" 

this doctrine. The Scriptures distinctly teach that 
are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all"; that we have received the atonement through 
the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that we arc recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son; that "He, His own 
Self, bare our sins in His own body on the tree"; that we 
are reconciled by "the blood of His cross" (Colossians 
1:20), and not by the blood that flowed through His veins 
as Christian Science would have us believe. 

There is probably no more important point than this upon 
which Christian Science and the Bible absolutely and 
hopelessly contradict each other. Argue as we will there 
is no point of possible agreement between them. Either one 
sacrifice is sufficient to take away sin as the Bible declares, 
or one sacrifice is not sufficient to take away sin as Chris- 
tian Science asserts. According to the teaching of Chris- 
tian Science, the shed blood of Jesus Christ is nothing more 
than a consequence of the unwise life He lived on the 
earth — an event hastened by His foolish talking about it. 
Then it is not what the Scriptures declare it to be, namely, 
the divine sacrifice which takes away the sin of the world. 
Christian Science tells us "Final deliverance from error is 
not reached by pinning one's faith without works to 
another's vicarious effort," but the Bible distinctly tells us 
that we are saved by faith in Christ without absolutely any 
works of our own (Galatians 2:16; 3:10). The Christian 
declares that: 

"Upon a life I did not live; 
Upon a death T did not die; 
Upon another's life, another's death. 
I risk my soul eternally. 

"Bearing shame and scoffings rude; 
In my place, condemned He stood; 
Sealed my pardon with His blood; 
Hallelujah, what a Saviour!" 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 23 

Startling as ft may seem, it is nevertheless true that 
Christian Science denies that Jesus Christ died at all. In 
Miscellaneous Writings, p. 212, we find these words: 
''Pitying friends took down from the cross the fainting form 
of Jesus, and buried it out of their sight." "His disciples 
believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the 
sepulchre, whereas he was alive" (S. & H., p. 44, 1909). 
"Jesus' students did not perform many wonderful works 
until they saw him after the crucifixion and learned that 
he had not died" (S. & H., p. 46, 1909). Indeed, how 
could Jesus die if He had no material body; then the 
tragedy on Calvary never really took place! 

e) Christian Science Denies the Resurrection and Ascen- 
sion of Jesus Christ. 

According to the teachings of Christian Science, the 
resurrection of Jesus was merely a risen thought in the 
minds of His disciples, and not as the Bible clearly teaches 
it to be, a real resurrection of the physical body of Jesus 
from the tomb. The resurrection of Christ was mental be- 
lief yielding to spiritual understanding; it was only the 
incorporeal idea of Christ that ascended. 

"Our Master reappeared to his students; that is, to 
their apprehension. He rose from the grave the third 
day of his ascending thought" (S. & H., p. 509, 1910). 
"His reappearance in idea" (S. & H. } p. 348, 1894). 
"Resurrection (is) spiritualization of thought; material be- 
lief yielding to spiritual understanding" (S. & H., p. 572, 
1893, cf. also p. 593, 1910). "He would disappear to 
material sense in that change which has since been called 
ascension" (S. & H., p. 339, 1893). This is clear lan- 
guage and at least shows us where Christian Science stands 
on these matters. The resurrection and ascension of Christ 



24 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

are to the Christian Scientist nothing more than a risen 

and ascended idea; heaven does not today contain the risen, 
glorified, and ascended Lord Jesus Christ, who is Priest 
and Intercessor for His people; there is no need to turn our 
eyes upward for the help of such an Intercessor; then 
Stephen was mistaken when he saw the Son of God; then 
Paul was mistaken when he spoke of looking for the Lord 
from heaven; then John was mistaken when in the 
Apocalypse, he prays for the Lord to come speedily 
from heaven; then the whole of Christendom is sadly 
mistaken in ardently looking for the coming again of 
our Saviour from heaven. Indeed Christian Science 
denies the resurrection of the body altogether. How 
can it do otherwise, and be consistent? In speaking of 
Lazarus, whom Christ raised from the dead after he had 
been dead four days, Christian Science says: "Jesus re- 
stored Lazarus by the understanding that he had never died, 
not by an admission that his body had died and then 
lived again" (S. & H., p. 75, 1908-1909). But Jesus said 
very plainly, according to the Scriptures, "Lazarus is dead." 

3. Christian Science Denies the Christian Doctrine 
of Sin. 

"To get rid of sin through Science, is to divest sin of 
any supposed reality" (S. & H., p. 234, 1894). 

"Matter and evil are unreal" (Misc. Writings, p. 27). 

"If God made all that was made, and it was good, where 
did evil originate? It never originated or existed as an en- 
tity. It (sin, evil) is but a false belief" (Misc. Writ- 
ings, p. 45). 

"Man is incapable of sin" (S. k H., p. 475, 1909). 

"If there is no sin, why did Jesus come to save sinners? 
Jesus came to seek and to save them from this false belief" 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 25 

(Misc. Writings , p. 63). According to these statements, 
Jesus did not come to seek and to save sinners at all. He 
came to save people from believing that they were sinners. 

"Evil is but an illusion" (S. & H., p. 480, 1910, cf. p. 
464, 1893). 

"It is the sense of sin and not the sinful soul that must be 
lost" (6\ & H., p. 207, 1894). 

"If soul could sin or be lost through sin" (S. & H., p. 
1H, 1894). "Destroy the sense of sin and sin itself dis- 
appears" (Unity of Good, p. 11). 

"In Christian Science the fact is made obvious that the 
sinner and sin are alike, simply nothingness" (Restrospec- 
tion and Introspection, p. 77). 

These quotations are enough to show that Christian 
Science boldly denies the reality and existence of sin. There 
is no sin; it is an error to feel a thing sinful. Banish the 
thought of sin and it is gone. There is no distinction be- 
tween right and wrong save as you yourself make such dis- 
tinction. 

"No more terrible doctrine since the Creation has ever 
been put into the minds of men. A man may violate the 
honor of his home; a woman may stain the ermine of her 
name; and yet if they will accept this doctrine of sin, they 
may continue in their iniquity so long as and so often as 
they please. For, if sin does not really exist, the practice of 
it no more makes it real than the belief of it. The person 
who yields to his or her passions, who commits all manner 
of sin and evil as judged by the laws of the land, may arise 
from the debauch and immediately wipe out all guilt and 
demerit by saying, 'I recognize that sin is a false belief; it 
does not exist; there is no such thing as sin; I have never 
sinned at all,' no amount of argument can make an ap- 
parently sinful act sinful, if sin does not really exist. How 



26 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 

the foundations of all morality are removed by such a 
dreadful doctrine! No wonder the unrenewed heart is ready 
to accept such teaching" (Haldeman). 

How this teaching contradicts the Bible and Christian 
Faith! 

All through the Bible in thousands of places sin is rec- 
ognized as a fact. It issues threats and warnings con- 
cerning sin ; it shows the peril of it, and clearly sets forth 
the dreadful consequences attending it, both in this life and 
in the life to come: It says: "If we say that we have 
no sin, we deceive ourselves," and "If we say that we 
have not sinned, we make him (God) a liar" (1 John 1:8, 
10, compare also Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; Psalms 
51 :4, 5; Romans 7:8-14; John 1 :29; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 
Corinthians 5:21). The whole sacrificial economy of the 
Old Testament, as well as the incarnation of Jesus Christ 
is built upon the recognition of the reality of sin and its 
punishment. 

4. Christian Science Denies the Christian Doctrine 
of Prayer. 

"Prayer to a personal God is a hindrance" (S. & H., 
Index p. 647, 1894). 

"Prayer to a corporeal God is useless" (S. & H., p. 647, 
1894; 74th Ed. Index, pp. 635, 647, 1893, 1894). 

"Prayer cannot change the science of Being" (S. & H., 
p. 308, 1894). "Then we try to give information to his 
infinite Mind and we plead for unmerited pardon" (p. 
309). This implies that it is useless to pray for unmerited 
pardon. 

We are told on pages 316 and 318 that we may as well 
use "praying machines" as they do in Thibet; that to 
pray for the sick is regarded as folly; that prayer cannot 






"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 27 

change unalterable truth; nor can prayer give an under- 
standing of the truth. "Prayer is a misapprehension of the 
source and manner of all good. Petitions only bring mor- 
tals the result of their own belief." "Who would stand 
before a blackboard and pray the principle of Mathematics 
to work out the problem? We work it out" {S. & H., 
p. 308, 1894). 

"Audible prayer is impressive. It gives momentary 
solemnity and elevation to thought, but does it produce last- 
ing benefit? God is not influenced by man" (S. & H. } p. 312, 
1894). "The Divine ear is not an auditorial nerve." "The 
habit of pleading with the Divine mind as one pleads with 
a human being, perpetuates the belief in God as humanly 
circumscribed, an error which impedes spiritual growth" 
(p. 308, 1894). "The danger from audible prayer is that 
it may lead us into temptation" (S. & H., p. 7, 1909). 

How contradictory these statements are to the teaching 
of the Bible on the subject of prayer! How full the teach- 
ing of Jesus was with regard to the privileges and power of 
prayer! How often He exhorted men to pray, to call upon 
God, to expect to influence God by reason of their faith 
and perseverance in prayer! How often even Jesus Him- 
self prayed and received definite answers to prayer! Rather 
than prayer leading us into temptation, Jesus Himself tells 
us to pray, lest we enter into temptation (compare Luke 
11:1, 18:1; Matthew 26:47; John 17; 14:17; James 1:5, 6; 
4:2; 5:13-18. 

III. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST BE- 
CAUSE OF ITS WRONG ATTITUDE TO- 
WARDS THE BIBLE. 

The relation of Christian Science to the Bible is quite 
generally misunderstood. It is ordinarily supposed that 



28 "Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist' 

Christian Scientists are devout and diligent students of the 
Bible. The fact of the matter is that they do not study the 
Bible as it is, but as it is printed in their own text book. A 
comparison of the Bible as it is and the Bible as it is 
printed in their own text books shows that the text of the 
Bible has been changed and garbled. A lady of education 
and culture, who held a prominent position in Christian 
Science circles, but who, later, seeing the error of the cult, 
withdrew from it, told me that the Christian Science Bible 
was really made up of texts taken from the King James 
Bible and snatched completely out of their setting and con- 
text. To these verses comments and annotations were added 
by Mrs. Eddy, which completely changed the sense of the 
verse as recorded in the Bible. Is it not a fact that in 
Christian Science churches while one reader reads from the 
Bible, the other reads the comments and interpretation of 
the Scriptures as set forth by the Christian Science text 
book, Science and Health ? 

THE BIBLE IS NOT THE SUPREME TEXT 
BOOK IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "A Christian Scientist requires my 
work on Science and Health for a text book, and so do all 
the students and patients. Why? First: Because it is 
the voice of truth to this age, and contains the whole of 
Christian Science, or the Science of healing through Mind. 
Second : Because it was the first published book contain- 
ing a statement of Christian Science, and registered revealed 
truth, uncontaminated with human hypothesis. Third: Be- 
cause its work has done more for teacher and student, for 
healer and patient than has been accomplished by other 
w r orks." 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 29 

"In this volume of mine, there are no contradictory 
statements" (S. & H. } p. 29, 51st Ed. p. 345, 1910). 
"Neither tongue nor pen can overthrow it" (S. & H., p. 
4, 51st Ed., cf. p. 110, 1910). 

The allegation that there are no contradictory statements 
in Science and Health places that text book on a very much 
higher level than the Bible, for, as the following quotations 
will show, the author of Science and Health does not 
consider the Bible free from false and contradictory state- 
ments : 

"The second chapter of Genesis contains a statement of 
this material view of God and the universe which is the 
exact opposite of scientific truth" . . . and "must be 
based on some hypothesis of error" (S. & H. } p. 503, 
1893; p. 521, 1909). 

"The first statement that evil ... is the fable of the 
serpent" (p. 544, 1910; cf. pp. 507-524, 1893). 

"How then could a material organization become the 
basis of man?" "Is it the truth or is it a lie concerning 
man and God? It must be a lie" (S. & H., p. 524, 
1910). 

"The legendary scriptural text in the second chapter of 
Genesis (S. & H. p. 526, 1910). 

Is it not clear from these statements that the Bible does 
not hold as important a place in Christian Science as does 
Science and Health? Mrs. Eddy says: "The material 
record of the Bible is no more important to our well-being 
than the history of Europe and America" (Misc. Writ- 
ings, p. 170, 1893). 

It is claimed by Christian Scientists that their doctrines 
are based on the Scriptures, but a consideration of their 
method of using (or abusing) the Scripture, may reveal to 
us the fact that any system of doctrine can be built upon 



30 "Why I Am Xot a Christian Scientist" 

the Bible if it be so misconstrued. Here are some examples. 
The brackets show the additions made by Science and 
Health to the Scripture text. 

In Romans 5:10 we are told that we were "reconciled to 
God by the death of his Son." Science and Health reads, 
"We were reconciled to God by the [seeming] death of 
his Son (p. 45, 1908). 

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 it is written, "As in Adam all 
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Science and 
Health reads, "As in Adam [error] all die, even so in 
Christ [truth] shall all be made alive." 

Revelation 1:17, 18 reads: "I am the first and the last; 
I am he that liveth and was dead [not understood] ; and 
behold I am alive forevermore [Science has explained me] 
S. & H., p. 334, 1908. 

In quoting Isaiah 53:6, Science and Health says: "With 
his stripes [the rejection of error] we are healed" (p. 
1908). 

Here is an illustration of Mrs. Eddy's interpretation of 
the Scriptural injunction to "Prove all things; to hold fast 
that which is good." She says: "If from an injury or 
from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain 
so violent that he could not treat himself mentally — and 
a Scientist had failed to relieve him, the sufferer could call 
a surgeon who would give him an hypodermic injection — 
then when the belief in pain was lulled he could handle his 
own case mentally. Thus it is that we Trove all things'; 
(and) hold fast that which is good" (S. & H., p. 464, 
1908). This does not look as though pain were an illusion 
after all ; and it does look as if there were contradictory 
statements in Science and Health, which in other places 
denies the existence of pain or sickness. 



"Why I Am Not a Christian Scientist" 31 

IV. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST BE- 
CAUSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IS A FOE 
TO THE HOME. 

"It is a fact that Christian Science is a foe to the home. 
I have heard of a family in which an invalid sister has made 
one brother a painter, another a musician, and a third an 
excellent reader. These brothers loved their sister very de- 
votedly. One of them learned painting, that he might paint 
scenes which she could not visit. The second learned music, 
that he might fill the home where she was with melody. 
The third devoted himself to reading, that he might while 
away her tedious hours. Here were the sweet, tender 
ministries of love. Let Christian Science enter that home, 
and it asserts at once that the sister is not sick — she is suffer- 
ing from a delusion. She is, therefore, to blame, and all 
these tender ministries of love are changed into the acidities 
of criticism and rebuke, silent, if not expressed. More than 
that, not a few homes have been broken up by Christian 
Science. 

"The sacred institution of marriage is the foundation of 
home, but I am informed by one who for several years was 
in the inner circle of the Christian Science movement that 
marriage is not now encouraged among those in the high- 
est positions. He tells of two young people w T ho lost caste 
because they dared to marry" (A. C. Dixon). 

1. Christian Science Virtually Denies the Need and 
Dignity of Marriage and Motherhood. 

"Did God at first create man unaided — that is, Adam, — 
but afterwards require the union of the two sexes in order 
to create the rest of the human family? No!" (S. & //., 
pp. 531, 532, 1909). "Generation does not rest on sexual 
basis at all" according to Christian Science. 



JUL 1» 1913 ^ 

32 "// hy I A m Not a Christian Scientist 

"To abolish marriage at this period and maintain mor- 
ality and generation would put Ingenuity to ludicrous 
shifts; yet this is possible In Science, (meaning, of course, 
Christian Science), although it is today problematic." 

"In Miscellaneous Writings, p. 288, the question is asked, 
'Is marriage nearer right than celibacy?' The answer is 
given, 'Human knowledge inculcates that it is, but Chris- 
tian Science indicates that it is not.' " 

These statements show where Christian Science stands 
with regard to the question of marriage. It shows that in 
the mind of the Christian Scientist celibacy, or the unmarried 
state, is nearer right than the married state. It is true that 
Christian Science does not openly forbid marriage, but who- 
ever heard of a marriage taking place in a Christian Science 
church, and performed by Christian Science readers or 
ministers? Such facts as these ought to make those of us 
who have the moral welfare of our nation at heart pause 
and think, if not shudder! 

Motherhood is not, according to Christian Science, the 
highest badge of womanhood. In Miscellaneous Writings, 
p. 289, we have these words: "Human nature has be- 
stowed on a wife the right to become a mother, but if the 
wife esteems not this a privilege . . . she may win a 
higher." What is that higher? ... to become a wife 
and not a mother? Thus motherhood is to be avoided; it 
is to be put in the category of that which is below a 
woman's highest and noblest function. This is the Chris- 
tian Science idea of the marriage relation. May we be pre- 
served from such a doctrine as this! It reminds us of the 
heresy foretold by the apostle concerning those who are led 
captive by silly women, and who forbid to marry. 



I AM NOT 
A CHRISTIAN 
SCIENTIST' 



^ 



LLIAM EVANS 



I 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Parti Drrve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 660 867 5 • 



